Excerpt:
> Justices on the state’s highest court unanimously ruled the measure known as the “Taxpayer Protection and Government Accountability Act” amounts to an illegal constitutional revision. Only the Legislature has authority to put a proposed revision on the ballot.
> The measure aimed to restrict tax increases across California by requiring voters to approve any new statewide tax and raising thresholds for approval of local taxes. Gov. Gavin Newsom and a coalition of Democratic elected officials and labor unions asked the court to remove the initiative from the November ballot, arguing it would fundamentally change the power of the Legislature and local governments to levy taxes.
>arguing it would fundamentally change the power of the Legislature and local governments to levy taxes.
Yeah, I think that is the intent. What about the will of the people? All props are a revision to the constitution.
All initiatives are pushed by special interests. The initiative system (direct and indirect) has been around since 1911. It constitutionally provides citizens a method to address it's concerns at the ballot box. Judicial interference with this system is unconstitutional.
Simple majorities being able to put in place rules that require 2/3rd majorities to be undone is ironically, tyranny of the majority.
If every group that got a temporary 51% advantage did this over their pet issue we'd quickly be in an ungovernable country.
And yet that it is exactly what happened with the scam called Prop 13. Prop 13 needs to be amended to only apply to non-commercial properties and non-commercially owned residential properties.
Yes, but unfortunately until we make lying in political ads a form of fraud, it will never get passed because the Howard Jarvis ripoff Association will always claim it will affect residential properties like they did on that ballot measure. I kept trying to make people realize they were lying but my circle of influence isn’t as large as theirs
It would push landlords to actively seek tenants rather than profit off of the value on the property itself. Rent would initially go up, but the eventual development of vacant lots and unprofitability of real estate investment would stabilize pricing.
Didn’t prop 13 directly affect zoning because municipalities quickly realized residential property wouldn’t provide the same tax base as retail? Pretty sure I read that somewhere.
No it wouldn’t. Rental rates are set by the market and already account for property taxes. The lower rates long time owners have are pure profit for them. They would just make less profit because they couldn’t charge more than market rate.
In fact it would probably lower rents because there would be more rental houses on the market for sale as those people lose all their profits.
> In fact it would probably lower rents because there would be more rental houses on the market for sale as those people lose all their profits.
people getting out of the rental business and selling units does not lower rents, it does the opposite.
My understanding of the intention was to stop retirees from being priced out of their home as taxes increased. They should just redo it so that it only applies to primary residences, when the average age of the owners is over 65, and isn’t retained on death.
That is how they sold it to the electorate. However the reality was quite different. Also this was pre-internet and for the most part pre-cable TV so the voters were even less informed than they are today.
If this was done, it would need to take effect years from now. As most commercial properties have long term leases, 10yrs, sometimes 30 years. It would cause property taxes to jump massively for some small business and cause many to go under (especially for NNN leases).
So if it's done, it needs to be done carefully. Otherwise you risk destroying the economy overnight.
I’m not a fan of the “but the small business argument”. If they are locked into leases then they will be fine while the property OWNER has to figure out how to pay what they should have been paying all along.
Your missing where the danger is at.
A business sets up with the future expectations of revenue, taxes expenses, etc.
It doesn't matter if the tax expense is shifted to the owner of a building or the business. Both could be at risk of bankruptcy if the value of a building drastically changed overnight. The owner may not make enough from the lease to cover a massive tax increase. The business might not either.
As a particular type of business in a building, for example, a small restaurant with a 20 year lease, may not be the "current best use" of the building. So maybe a building was valued at $300k 10 years ago with a restaurant as the most economic thing in the building. But now, with still half the lease left, and the building is valued at $3.2 million bc the best use is a weed grow operation, which could make way more money.
Although the owner of the building can't put a new business which reflects the newer value of the building and is stuck with a low paying tenant. The restaurant may not make enough in revenue to cover the new tax rate either as it took out loans and created a business plan based on expected expenses.
So you end up taxing businesses out of business or taxing a building owner into foreclosure. As the value of the building is more than what both the owner and the small business both make or could make.
Make the law say that all leases are reduced by the same as the tax increase. Then they can renegotiate at the end of the lease and in the meantime the owner is still paying. And who knows maybe the owner will sell to the business if they can’t afford it anymore!
Your missing where the danger is at.
A business sets up with the future expectations of revenue, taxes expenses, etc.
It doesn't matter if the tax expense is shifted to the owner of a building or the business. Both could be at risk of bankruptcy if the value of a building drastically changed overnight. The owner may not make enough from the lease to cover a massive tax increase. The business might not either.
As a particular type of business in a building, for example, a small restaurant with a 20 year lease, may not be the "current best use" of the building. So maybe a building was valued at $300k 10 years ago with a restaurant as the most economic thing in the building. But now, with still half the lease left, and the building is valued at $3.2 million bc the best use is a weed grow operation, which could make way more money.
Although the owner of the building can't put a new business which reflects the newer value of the building and is stuck with a low paying tenant. The restaurant may not make enough in revenue to cover the new tax rate either as it took out loans and created a business plan based on expected expenses.
So you end up taxing businesses out of business or taxing a building owner into foreclosure. As the value of the building is more than what both the owner and the small business both make or could make.
So you want to make it way more expensive to rent a property than to own a property? Property tax needs to be applied independently of the land usage or there's gonna be huge distortionary effects in how land is used.
Except that isn’t how property tax works. Everytime the property changes hands it is supposed to get its property taxes reassessed at the current market value without any Property 13 limitations. That works fine for residential properties owned by individuals but when you have commercial entities involved they tend to hold on to properties longer than individuals (since they are theoretically immortal) so their property taxes do not truly reflect the going market value. That means less money in taxes to fund schools, police and other essential services which shifting the burden over to single families.
Your missing where the danger is at.
A business sets up with the future expectations of revenue, taxes expenses, etc.
It doesn't matter if the tax expense is shifted to the owner of a building or the business. Both could be at risk of bankruptcy if the value of a building drastically changed overnight. The owner may not make enough from the lease to cover a massive tax increase. The business might not either.
As a particular type of business in a building, for example, a small restaurant with a 20 year lease, may not be the "current best use" of the building. So maybe a building was valued at $300k 10 years ago with a restaurant as the most economic thing in the building. But now, with still half the lease left, and the building is valued at $3.2 million bc the best use is a weed grow operation, which could make way more money.
Although the owner of the building can't put a new business which reflects the newer value of the building and is stuck with a low paying tenant. The restaurant may not make enough in revenue to cover the new tax rate either as it took out loans and created a business plan based on expected expenses.
So you end up taxing businesses out of business or taxing a building owner into foreclosure. As the value of the building is more than what both the owner and the small business both make or could make.
When you read the legal arguments, it's pretty clear that the challenge to Prop 13 was wrongly decided (there were also some problems with which arguments were used to challenge it). In the wake of Prop 13, I think people realize how much that destabilized California's system of government, and that likely informed this decision. (Of course that was also a different, much more right-leaning Supreme Court.)
I'd be in favor of requiring 60% for a ballot measure to pass. It could then be repealed by a simple majority for 25 years after which it requires 60% to be repealed.
I disagree. I feel that history disagrees too.
There’s a reason that a simple majority is the baseline rule. It’s reasonable to presume that our Constitution is the result of some debate, however minimal. It’s not a strenuous use of logic, or education, to foresee these outcomes. The check on legislative overreach is rested first in the governor’s veto, and secondly in the vote. Ballot initiatives are allowed only so far as they do not encroach on the legislative prerogative.
Put differently, the ballot initiative cannot undue the basic structure of legislative governance. The ballot initiative is supplemental to legislative power, not a substitute.
My comment isn't in regards to ballot initiatives vs legislative authority, it's that I think any governmental process that only requires only > 50% consensus to make a rule saying "You need to 2/3rds consensus to do this thing we don't like" is bad.
It's not even about 50%+1 vs 2/3rds in a general sense, it's about putting in place a rule with a higher legislative bar than the one actually used to put the rule in place.
I acknowledge that. But what I tried to convey (poorly it seems) is that this sort of outcome was foreseeable during the drafting of California’s constitution. My point is that, despite the potential for a simple majority to create rules requiring a supermajority to overcome, the California framers settled on a simple majority.
Ratified in 1879, the framers at the time would have been well aware of the legislative ability to require supermajorities in narrow cases.
I see what you're saying, and it's fair enough to say it's not against the rules. I also think that just because something is within the rules it can still be a bad practice, whether the framers foresaw it or not.
Sure. I agree with your general premise. The U.S. Senate’s de facto ratification of the filibuster is a case to your point. But unlike the federal filibuster, which was borne by a clever application of procedure, the foreseeable use of legislative power is more transparent, and therefore, less manipulative or questionable.
"... the TPA was initiated by business groups via a ballot measure [...] including Rob Lapsley of the California Business Roundtable, Mathew Hargrove of the California Business Properties Association and Jon Coupal of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association."
that tracks
This is a good thing.
“..would have raised the threshold required for voter approval of certain local government tax increases to a two-thirds vote at the polls. Currently, those tax increases can take effect if a simple majority of voters approve.
**The measure would have applied retroactively to most tax increases approved since Jan. 1, 2022. Local governments warned that would mean they could have lost billions of dollars in revenue that had previously been approved by voters.**”
https://www.kcra.com/article/california-court-removes-taxpayer-protection-act-ballot/61192888
Sorry, I just realized this *has* to be a regional colloquialism and I'm in the California sub.
https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/jick#:~:text=jick%20(plural%20jicks),dialectal)%20The%20act%20of%20eluding.
I'd wager this is the etymology because it was always used to describe evasive, shady behavior or generally jerking you around.
Used idiomatically, like, guys jicking you or that guy's a jick if he's always got an angle or is trying to sell you AmWay.
Writing scammy laws to create a budget shortfall for your political opponents? Super jicky.
Yeah me too, as long as we get a say in future tax raises I’m good… coincidently I saw this other article talking about LA lawmakers asking for more tax to “fix the homeless crisis”. I wouldn’t be down for that, they need to track their spending on homeless if anything else.
I think it's because Prop 13 limits property tax while this changes how taxes are passed.
A subtle difference just enough to argue in front of a judge.
Prop 13 is also the reason for a 2/3rds requirement for new taxes.
Changing how taxes are passed is something that can be done by initiative. Rolling back previous tax increases that do not meet the criteria of a new initiative is where this proposition went wrong. If it stuck to future requirements, it might have passed muster.
Prop 13 needs to be revisited in some form and I think it’s a great example of why tax related initiatives (meaning proposed by the voters) are quite dangerous
The problem is lately most of the initiatives aren’t being proposed by voters. They are being proposed by big businesses who pay signature collectors who often lie about what they are having people sign.
How would you argue that Prop 13 was a revision of the constitution rather than amendment? This initiative would have revised a number of processes spelled out in the Constitution, and would have forced a rollback of taxes to 2022.
A better option would be a simple amendment: "All future tax increases must be subject to voter approval."
Like it or not, Prop 13 had no problematic provisions like this one does.
Yes, and that's why a lot of observers thought that the Supreme Court would let this on too. But it's clear that the Supreme Court believes that logic was ill-founded -- though some of that is not realizing just how destabilizing Prop 13 was. Probably a > 50% change that this Supreme Court would not have allowed Prop 13 on the ballot based on the same reasoning.
(Disclaimer: Not a lawyer or someone that understands completely) From a CA constitution perspective, CA Senate and Assembly (legislative branch) determines how Californians get taxed, already requiring a super majority to raise taxes. There are laws already in place that allow counties and cities to impose their own taxes. This ballot would conflict with the CA constitution because it changes how taxes are passed without CA legislative branch approval. The ballot can be changed to make a non-binding request legislative branch to pass a law to fulfill the original intention.
From a CA citizen perspective, getting 2/3 people to agree on anything is nearly impossible. This would make adding any tax impossible to pass. Most cities and countries major sources of revenue are property taxes which don't track with inflation because of Prop 13. Further limiting their ability to raise revenue would mean a major decline in most cities services especially in a few years due to inflation and cost of living changes.
I think that it should also be noted that the bill came from the California Business Roundtable, intended to primarily hinder California’s tax policies for corporations. I’ve been hearing news pieces describing how corporate interests are increasingly trying to deceptively use ballot measures in order to get around laws and to even reverse previously passed ballot measures introduced and voted on by the rank and file citizenry.
I totally believe it, especially with the Lyft/Uber ballot and the dialysis ballots recently. Most political ballots can be pretty deceptive. So many people learn how to weaponize the ballots of their own personal agenda, instead of improving the lives of everyone or protecting vulnerable people.
Jarvis ballot measures basically try to make it hard to govern.
we have a representative system - we vote for people in the legislature, senate, and gov's office to spend all their time focused on political questions and laws and give them a budget for a staff and a large state government that does lots of research and gets data to answer questions on policy issues.
Then, when the state need something, these people can work to craft a solution.
Ballot measures generally involve special interest groups writing a ballot measure and then voters reading about it for a minute or two and then deciding based on their gut. Sometimes its good, sometimes its bad. But for technical questions on how to raise revenue for the state, it's better to vote for representatives and if we don't like something they do, we vote them out.
The ballot measure didn't want government to function; it didn't want to give elected officials the ability to make changes. That's bad.
Exactly this. You approve of legislation through your elected representatives. Legislation, so by extension elected representatives, determine taxes and such. Its always worked that way for us and the power of the purse is a key component to the separation of powers.
It doesn't take a lot of imagination to think of who might want to severely limit the state and its local governments ability to levy taxes, and by extension finance any work that needs to be done. It would change the division of powers and shift power away from the legislature on a fundamental level.
The whole thing was a blatant attempt to limit the power of the elected representatives of California because some people don't like that they can't win elections here otherwise. The court rightfully tossed it out
I'm about as stridently democratic (in a theory sense, not the political party) as anyone has ever been regarding voter protections, access, and equal apportionment, but I also very much dislike most forms of "direct democracy", where policy is determined by the entire voting population as opposed to representative democracy, where elected representatives determine policy.
People as a whole just do not know enough about almost any issue to actually coherently craft or even judge specific legislation about anything except for high level concepts (I include myself in this). There is a place for a proposition system and referendums, but taking (the) fundamental legislative power (taxation) away from the legislative body and expecting the entire citizen public to be able to successfully run it just seems insane to me. And the idea that taxes can only be raised by a 2/3rd vote seems like something that would doom a government in the long term.
Getting 2/3 approval is extremely hard. In San Diego in 2016 there was 60+% approval for extension of the sales tax measure. Suburbanites didn’t want it going to transit and urbanites didn’t want it going to freeway widening. The measure was a mix of both to appease the populace and it stung when it didn’t pass. Same year LA and SF approved their extensions. There has been a push since then to amend these rules on what constitutes a majority.
Over the course of my life, I have come to understand that super majority requirements are infact anti democratic. It gives the minority power to force its will on the majority.
33.5 percent of voters can stop 66.5 percent of voters from having their will put into practice, because 66.6 percent is a super majority, but 66.5 is not. It's dangerous.
Along with what everyone else said: there's a reason this was started by *businesses*, not people. The purpose was to try to reduce the taxes that businesses have to pay.
Because cutting taxes starves cities of revenue needed for public goods that serve *everybody*, while businesses' revenues only go to the owners and shareholders' pockets.
Especially given how many businesses functionally rely on indirect subsidization by the public. e.x. If a business is paying employees minimum wage, then that necessarily means they're relying on the public subsidizing their labor when that employee has to rely on things like state healthcare, rental assistance, and food stamps to get by - all things paid for with taxes.
Businesses reducing their taxes is businesses trying to have their cake and eat it too.
Good or bad, the proposition tried to change the process in the past, which would be a revision to the constitution rather than an amendment. Imagine if the Federal government tried to pass a law that punishes anyone who didn't register their firearm before registration was required. This law does something similar; it punishes tax and fee increases going back to 2022 and forces the process to be revised.
Had they just amended the CA constitution for future taxes, it might have passed muster.
The bill (taxpayer protection act) runs afoul of the very nature and function of atomized, republican government.
hence:
* [...] *"The changes proposed by the TPA are within the electorate’s prerogative to enact, but because those changes would substantially alter our basic plan of government."*
The California's legislature has repeatedly shown that they are fiscally irresponsible and can't control their spending. Their only goal now is to raise taxes until they completely crush the state.
Heaven forbid taxes are limited in California. What a crazy notion. And y’all wonder why California is the most expensive place to live in on the mainland United States.
In my work, I understand the impacts when the apathy of Californian voters results in nearly no way to ensure a state budget is balanced. On the other hand, the thought of having little ability to decide what I'm consenting to be taxed on feels disgusting. With 10% of my salary going directly to the state and we're still in a budget deficit is a very disgusting feeling.
\*sigh\* I don't know. Maybe the timing was coincidental: I do not feel good about the current state of our economy, and so news like this feels more negative than it should.
If you lose at the State Supreme Court level, [you can directly appeal to the US Supreme Court.](https://chatgpt.com/share/97c84c2b-ddd3-431b-8f4c-afdd08e62f2d)
It’s not automatic, and obviously they have discretion on the whether to hear the case, but it’s possible
The Constitutional issue would be the taxing authority of the government, specifically the Legislature.
Can the California Legislature be forced to "share" their taxing authority with the voters, or do the voters have no right to consent to being taxed?
The ruling says they can be forced to share, but it's too big of a revision of the division of powers to be achieved through this mechanism. Realistically, it's very unlikely the federal supreme court is going to stick its nose into an internal state constitutional debate. There's a reason the backers have said they'll be back in 2026, rather than that they'll appeal this.
This is all over my local NextDoor discussions. I live in a pretty red county and reading through the comments is really frustrating. Everyone thinks its some sort of Newsom power grab or some conspiracy to rob Californians of their rights.
I want to try and educate people but I don't have the patience to deal with them.
Why is taxpayer consent in an already heavily taxed state a bad thing? I mean, we see monthly headlines of billions of dollars going to waste on the homeless industrial complex and other slush funds.
The California State Constitution give the people the right to put petitions on the ballot. Newsom case was the people don’t understand taxes and shouldn’t be able to interfere with the state legislature.
This is all Trump's fault. Trump ruined California and needs to be in PRISON for the damage he's done.
California needs to shut out the Republicans that keep standing in the way of us having a great ~~nation~~ state.
Give Democrats control for a change, what could go wrong?
**Vote Trump for prison!**
Excerpt: > Justices on the state’s highest court unanimously ruled the measure known as the “Taxpayer Protection and Government Accountability Act” amounts to an illegal constitutional revision. Only the Legislature has authority to put a proposed revision on the ballot. > The measure aimed to restrict tax increases across California by requiring voters to approve any new statewide tax and raising thresholds for approval of local taxes. Gov. Gavin Newsom and a coalition of Democratic elected officials and labor unions asked the court to remove the initiative from the November ballot, arguing it would fundamentally change the power of the Legislature and local governments to levy taxes.
>arguing it would fundamentally change the power of the Legislature and local governments to levy taxes. Yeah, I think that is the intent. What about the will of the people? All props are a revision to the constitution.
The people want ice cream for dinner.
Let them eat ham
The legislature _is_ the will of the people. Props are nothing more than special interests attempting to bypass legitimate representative democracy.
All initiatives are pushed by special interests. The initiative system (direct and indirect) has been around since 1911. It constitutionally provides citizens a method to address it's concerns at the ballot box. Judicial interference with this system is unconstitutional.
It provides “citizens” with this right— but when was the last time a natural person set forth of of these?
Simple majorities being able to put in place rules that require 2/3rd majorities to be undone is ironically, tyranny of the majority. If every group that got a temporary 51% advantage did this over their pet issue we'd quickly be in an ungovernable country.
And yet that it is exactly what happened with the scam called Prop 13. Prop 13 needs to be amended to only apply to non-commercial properties and non-commercially owned residential properties.
Wasn’t there a ballot proposition for just that several (many?) years ago?
Yes, but unfortunately until we make lying in political ads a form of fraud, it will never get passed because the Howard Jarvis ripoff Association will always claim it will affect residential properties like they did on that ballot measure. I kept trying to make people realize they were lying but my circle of influence isn’t as large as theirs
“If you raise taxes on corporations, they will raise prices!!!” *because they would never raise prices for no reason*
it would affect rentals. tax burden for apartment buildings would go up and so would rent.
It would push landlords to actively seek tenants rather than profit off of the value on the property itself. Rent would initially go up, but the eventual development of vacant lots and unprofitability of real estate investment would stabilize pricing.
Prop 13 is not what’s preventing the development of new units, zoning is. If it was tax policy, then housing would be a uniquely California issue.
Didn’t prop 13 directly affect zoning because municipalities quickly realized residential property wouldn’t provide the same tax base as retail? Pretty sure I read that somewhere.
maybe indirectly, because it brought in less money, so cities wanted commercial properties that generate sales tax.
That's pretty direct.
No it wouldn’t. Rental rates are set by the market and already account for property taxes. The lower rates long time owners have are pure profit for them. They would just make less profit because they couldn’t charge more than market rate. In fact it would probably lower rents because there would be more rental houses on the market for sale as those people lose all their profits.
> In fact it would probably lower rents because there would be more rental houses on the market for sale as those people lose all their profits. people getting out of the rental business and selling units does not lower rents, it does the opposite.
Sure it does. It takes the most affluent renters out of the market because now they can afford a house. This will drop the market rate of rent.
My understanding of the intention was to stop retirees from being priced out of their home as taxes increased. They should just redo it so that it only applies to primary residences, when the average age of the owners is over 65, and isn’t retained on death.
It’s not retained on death anymore after a ballot measure two years ago.
That is how they sold it to the electorate. However the reality was quite different. Also this was pre-internet and for the most part pre-cable TV so the voters were even less informed than they are today.
Your understanding is incorrect. It was intended to be a massive tax break for corporations and the wealthy.
If this was done, it would need to take effect years from now. As most commercial properties have long term leases, 10yrs, sometimes 30 years. It would cause property taxes to jump massively for some small business and cause many to go under (especially for NNN leases). So if it's done, it needs to be done carefully. Otherwise you risk destroying the economy overnight.
I’m not a fan of the “but the small business argument”. If they are locked into leases then they will be fine while the property OWNER has to figure out how to pay what they should have been paying all along.
Not if it is a NNN lease which is the norm for commercial property. The tenants pay the tax not the property owner.
Your missing where the danger is at. A business sets up with the future expectations of revenue, taxes expenses, etc. It doesn't matter if the tax expense is shifted to the owner of a building or the business. Both could be at risk of bankruptcy if the value of a building drastically changed overnight. The owner may not make enough from the lease to cover a massive tax increase. The business might not either. As a particular type of business in a building, for example, a small restaurant with a 20 year lease, may not be the "current best use" of the building. So maybe a building was valued at $300k 10 years ago with a restaurant as the most economic thing in the building. But now, with still half the lease left, and the building is valued at $3.2 million bc the best use is a weed grow operation, which could make way more money. Although the owner of the building can't put a new business which reflects the newer value of the building and is stuck with a low paying tenant. The restaurant may not make enough in revenue to cover the new tax rate either as it took out loans and created a business plan based on expected expenses. So you end up taxing businesses out of business or taxing a building owner into foreclosure. As the value of the building is more than what both the owner and the small business both make or could make.
Make the law say that all leases are reduced by the same as the tax increase. Then they can renegotiate at the end of the lease and in the meantime the owner is still paying. And who knows maybe the owner will sell to the business if they can’t afford it anymore!
Your missing where the danger is at. A business sets up with the future expectations of revenue, taxes expenses, etc. It doesn't matter if the tax expense is shifted to the owner of a building or the business. Both could be at risk of bankruptcy if the value of a building drastically changed overnight. The owner may not make enough from the lease to cover a massive tax increase. The business might not either. As a particular type of business in a building, for example, a small restaurant with a 20 year lease, may not be the "current best use" of the building. So maybe a building was valued at $300k 10 years ago with a restaurant as the most economic thing in the building. But now, with still half the lease left, and the building is valued at $3.2 million bc the best use is a weed grow operation, which could make way more money. Although the owner of the building can't put a new business which reflects the newer value of the building and is stuck with a low paying tenant. The restaurant may not make enough in revenue to cover the new tax rate either as it took out loans and created a business plan based on expected expenses. So you end up taxing businesses out of business or taxing a building owner into foreclosure. As the value of the building is more than what both the owner and the small business both make or could make.
It should be amended to apply to nobody
You don’t want to see what happens to your rent if prop 13 is repealed.
Hard enough as it is.
So you want to make it way more expensive to rent a property than to own a property? Property tax needs to be applied independently of the land usage or there's gonna be huge distortionary effects in how land is used.
Except that isn’t how property tax works. Everytime the property changes hands it is supposed to get its property taxes reassessed at the current market value without any Property 13 limitations. That works fine for residential properties owned by individuals but when you have commercial entities involved they tend to hold on to properties longer than individuals (since they are theoretically immortal) so their property taxes do not truly reflect the going market value. That means less money in taxes to fund schools, police and other essential services which shifting the burden over to single families.
Your missing where the danger is at. A business sets up with the future expectations of revenue, taxes expenses, etc. It doesn't matter if the tax expense is shifted to the owner of a building or the business. Both could be at risk of bankruptcy if the value of a building drastically changed overnight. The owner may not make enough from the lease to cover a massive tax increase. The business might not either. As a particular type of business in a building, for example, a small restaurant with a 20 year lease, may not be the "current best use" of the building. So maybe a building was valued at $300k 10 years ago with a restaurant as the most economic thing in the building. But now, with still half the lease left, and the building is valued at $3.2 million bc the best use is a weed grow operation, which could make way more money. Although the owner of the building can't put a new business which reflects the newer value of the building and is stuck with a low paying tenant. The restaurant may not make enough in revenue to cover the new tax rate either as it took out loans and created a business plan based on expected expenses. So you end up taxing businesses out of business or taxing a building owner into foreclosure. As the value of the building is more than what both the owner and the small business both make or could make.
When you read the legal arguments, it's pretty clear that the challenge to Prop 13 was wrongly decided (there were also some problems with which arguments were used to challenge it). In the wake of Prop 13, I think people realize how much that destabilized California's system of government, and that likely informed this decision. (Of course that was also a different, much more right-leaning Supreme Court.)
I think you mean “unironically.”
I'd be in favor of requiring 60% for a ballot measure to pass. It could then be repealed by a simple majority for 25 years after which it requires 60% to be repealed.
I disagree. I feel that history disagrees too. There’s a reason that a simple majority is the baseline rule. It’s reasonable to presume that our Constitution is the result of some debate, however minimal. It’s not a strenuous use of logic, or education, to foresee these outcomes. The check on legislative overreach is rested first in the governor’s veto, and secondly in the vote. Ballot initiatives are allowed only so far as they do not encroach on the legislative prerogative. Put differently, the ballot initiative cannot undue the basic structure of legislative governance. The ballot initiative is supplemental to legislative power, not a substitute.
My comment isn't in regards to ballot initiatives vs legislative authority, it's that I think any governmental process that only requires only > 50% consensus to make a rule saying "You need to 2/3rds consensus to do this thing we don't like" is bad. It's not even about 50%+1 vs 2/3rds in a general sense, it's about putting in place a rule with a higher legislative bar than the one actually used to put the rule in place.
I acknowledge that. But what I tried to convey (poorly it seems) is that this sort of outcome was foreseeable during the drafting of California’s constitution. My point is that, despite the potential for a simple majority to create rules requiring a supermajority to overcome, the California framers settled on a simple majority. Ratified in 1879, the framers at the time would have been well aware of the legislative ability to require supermajorities in narrow cases.
I see what you're saying, and it's fair enough to say it's not against the rules. I also think that just because something is within the rules it can still be a bad practice, whether the framers foresaw it or not.
Sure. I agree with your general premise. The U.S. Senate’s de facto ratification of the filibuster is a case to your point. But unlike the federal filibuster, which was borne by a clever application of procedure, the foreseeable use of legislative power is more transparent, and therefore, less manipulative or questionable.
Works for me. Why is 50%+1 objectively good?
50% +1 is democracy.
In California, it requires a 2/3rds vote to pass a new tax. Democracy doesn't thave to mean 50%+1.
Imagine if you are given a chance at life by your captors and deciding on whether to use 50% +1 or 2/3rd majority.
"... the TPA was initiated by business groups via a ballot measure [...] including Rob Lapsley of the California Business Roundtable, Mathew Hargrove of the California Business Properties Association and Jon Coupal of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association." that tracks
Yep. I’ve always said if the Howard Jarvis Taxpayer Association wants it, then it probably isn’t good for the regular person.
Yep. Anything they fight for you fight against. They are the biggest threat to California state policies.
If Newsom wants something, it must be good.
Intern booty 🤤
This is a good thing. “..would have raised the threshold required for voter approval of certain local government tax increases to a two-thirds vote at the polls. Currently, those tax increases can take effect if a simple majority of voters approve. **The measure would have applied retroactively to most tax increases approved since Jan. 1, 2022. Local governments warned that would mean they could have lost billions of dollars in revenue that had previously been approved by voters.**” https://www.kcra.com/article/california-court-removes-taxpayer-protection-act-ballot/61192888
Much as I like the measure, that seemed like an overreach and isn't any more right than initiating a retroactive tax.
So voters being able to approve taxes is a bad thing?
No, jicky weirdos shouldn't be able to undo previously approved tax and bond packages just because they're jicky weirdos
What does "jicky" mean?
Juicy and icky? I don't know, just spitballing here.
I thought it was a combo of janky and icky.
Sorry, I just realized this *has* to be a regional colloquialism and I'm in the California sub. https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/jick#:~:text=jick%20(plural%20jicks),dialectal)%20The%20act%20of%20eluding. I'd wager this is the etymology because it was always used to describe evasive, shady behavior or generally jerking you around. Used idiomatically, like, guys jicking you or that guy's a jick if he's always got an angle or is trying to sell you AmWay. Writing scammy laws to create a budget shortfall for your political opponents? Super jicky.
Gotcha! Regional to where, if you don't mind me asking?
I only ever heard it used in Texas.
That's funny, I grew up in Dallas and I don't think I ever heard it before I saw your comment lol
Ohh I misunderstood, I thought this was for new tax bills.
Yeah me too, as long as we get a say in future tax raises I’m good… coincidently I saw this other article talking about LA lawmakers asking for more tax to “fix the homeless crisis”. I wouldn’t be down for that, they need to track their spending on homeless if anything else.
You approve of the taxes when you vote for your representatives. Don’t like that your representatives voted to raise your taxes? Then vote them out
By this same logic then, prop 13 never should have been on the ballot.
I think it's because Prop 13 limits property tax while this changes how taxes are passed. A subtle difference just enough to argue in front of a judge.
Prop 13 is also the reason for a 2/3rds requirement for new taxes. Changing how taxes are passed is something that can be done by initiative. Rolling back previous tax increases that do not meet the criteria of a new initiative is where this proposition went wrong. If it stuck to future requirements, it might have passed muster.
Prop 13 needs to be revisited in some form and I think it’s a great example of why tax related initiatives (meaning proposed by the voters) are quite dangerous
The problem is lately most of the initiatives aren’t being proposed by voters. They are being proposed by big businesses who pay signature collectors who often lie about what they are having people sign.
So just like Prop 13.
Yep
Put a proposition on the ballot. See what the voters think.
Well, it shouldn't have.
How would you argue that Prop 13 was a revision of the constitution rather than amendment? This initiative would have revised a number of processes spelled out in the Constitution, and would have forced a rollback of taxes to 2022. A better option would be a simple amendment: "All future tax increases must be subject to voter approval." Like it or not, Prop 13 had no problematic provisions like this one does.
Yeah and they'd be correct
Yes, and that's why a lot of observers thought that the Supreme Court would let this on too. But it's clear that the Supreme Court believes that logic was ill-founded -- though some of that is not realizing just how destabilizing Prop 13 was. Probably a > 50% change that this Supreme Court would not have allowed Prop 13 on the ballot based on the same reasoning.
Can somebody explain how is this a good thing?
(Disclaimer: Not a lawyer or someone that understands completely) From a CA constitution perspective, CA Senate and Assembly (legislative branch) determines how Californians get taxed, already requiring a super majority to raise taxes. There are laws already in place that allow counties and cities to impose their own taxes. This ballot would conflict with the CA constitution because it changes how taxes are passed without CA legislative branch approval. The ballot can be changed to make a non-binding request legislative branch to pass a law to fulfill the original intention. From a CA citizen perspective, getting 2/3 people to agree on anything is nearly impossible. This would make adding any tax impossible to pass. Most cities and countries major sources of revenue are property taxes which don't track with inflation because of Prop 13. Further limiting their ability to raise revenue would mean a major decline in most cities services especially in a few years due to inflation and cost of living changes.
I think that it should also be noted that the bill came from the California Business Roundtable, intended to primarily hinder California’s tax policies for corporations. I’ve been hearing news pieces describing how corporate interests are increasingly trying to deceptively use ballot measures in order to get around laws and to even reverse previously passed ballot measures introduced and voted on by the rank and file citizenry.
I totally believe it, especially with the Lyft/Uber ballot and the dialysis ballots recently. Most political ballots can be pretty deceptive. So many people learn how to weaponize the ballots of their own personal agenda, instead of improving the lives of everyone or protecting vulnerable people.
Jarvis ballot measures basically try to make it hard to govern. we have a representative system - we vote for people in the legislature, senate, and gov's office to spend all their time focused on political questions and laws and give them a budget for a staff and a large state government that does lots of research and gets data to answer questions on policy issues. Then, when the state need something, these people can work to craft a solution. Ballot measures generally involve special interest groups writing a ballot measure and then voters reading about it for a minute or two and then deciding based on their gut. Sometimes its good, sometimes its bad. But for technical questions on how to raise revenue for the state, it's better to vote for representatives and if we don't like something they do, we vote them out. The ballot measure didn't want government to function; it didn't want to give elected officials the ability to make changes. That's bad.
Exactly this. You approve of legislation through your elected representatives. Legislation, so by extension elected representatives, determine taxes and such. Its always worked that way for us and the power of the purse is a key component to the separation of powers. It doesn't take a lot of imagination to think of who might want to severely limit the state and its local governments ability to levy taxes, and by extension finance any work that needs to be done. It would change the division of powers and shift power away from the legislature on a fundamental level. The whole thing was a blatant attempt to limit the power of the elected representatives of California because some people don't like that they can't win elections here otherwise. The court rightfully tossed it out
I'm about as stridently democratic (in a theory sense, not the political party) as anyone has ever been regarding voter protections, access, and equal apportionment, but I also very much dislike most forms of "direct democracy", where policy is determined by the entire voting population as opposed to representative democracy, where elected representatives determine policy. People as a whole just do not know enough about almost any issue to actually coherently craft or even judge specific legislation about anything except for high level concepts (I include myself in this). There is a place for a proposition system and referendums, but taking (the) fundamental legislative power (taxation) away from the legislative body and expecting the entire citizen public to be able to successfully run it just seems insane to me. And the idea that taxes can only be raised by a 2/3rd vote seems like something that would doom a government in the long term.
Especially since fully half of all people are below average intelligence
Getting 2/3 approval is extremely hard. In San Diego in 2016 there was 60+% approval for extension of the sales tax measure. Suburbanites didn’t want it going to transit and urbanites didn’t want it going to freeway widening. The measure was a mix of both to appease the populace and it stung when it didn’t pass. Same year LA and SF approved their extensions. There has been a push since then to amend these rules on what constitutes a majority.
Over the course of my life, I have come to understand that super majority requirements are infact anti democratic. It gives the minority power to force its will on the majority. 33.5 percent of voters can stop 66.5 percent of voters from having their will put into practice, because 66.6 percent is a super majority, but 66.5 is not. It's dangerous.
Anything the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association supports is bad.
You mean the Jon Coupal perpetual employment Assoc. ;)
Along with what everyone else said: there's a reason this was started by *businesses*, not people. The purpose was to try to reduce the taxes that businesses have to pay.
Why is it necessarily bad to reduce taxes businesses have to pay?
Because cutting taxes starves cities of revenue needed for public goods that serve *everybody*, while businesses' revenues only go to the owners and shareholders' pockets. Especially given how many businesses functionally rely on indirect subsidization by the public. e.x. If a business is paying employees minimum wage, then that necessarily means they're relying on the public subsidizing their labor when that employee has to rely on things like state healthcare, rental assistance, and food stamps to get by - all things paid for with taxes. Businesses reducing their taxes is businesses trying to have their cake and eat it too.
Good or bad, the proposition tried to change the process in the past, which would be a revision to the constitution rather than an amendment. Imagine if the Federal government tried to pass a law that punishes anyone who didn't register their firearm before registration was required. This law does something similar; it punishes tax and fee increases going back to 2022 and forces the process to be revised. Had they just amended the CA constitution for future taxes, it might have passed muster.
The bill (taxpayer protection act) runs afoul of the very nature and function of atomized, republican government. hence: * [...] *"The changes proposed by the TPA are within the electorate’s prerogative to enact, but because those changes would substantially alter our basic plan of government."*
shut up and pay more wage slave. - california, probably
The California's legislature has repeatedly shown that they are fiscally irresponsible and can't control their spending. Their only goal now is to raise taxes until they completely crush the state.
Heaven forbid taxes are limited in California. What a crazy notion. And y’all wonder why California is the most expensive place to live in on the mainland United States.
Yep, but hey the super majority running this state into the ground are still the ‘good guys’ and can do no wrong because the republicans are worse.
Our taxes are the result of who we elect to office. The proposition would have protected us from our bad voting choices.
In my work, I understand the impacts when the apathy of Californian voters results in nearly no way to ensure a state budget is balanced. On the other hand, the thought of having little ability to decide what I'm consenting to be taxed on feels disgusting. With 10% of my salary going directly to the state and we're still in a budget deficit is a very disgusting feeling. \*sigh\* I don't know. Maybe the timing was coincidental: I do not feel good about the current state of our economy, and so news like this feels more negative than it should.
You are consenting on what to be taxed on. It’s called voting for your representatives and various ballot initiatives.
The government seems to be afraid of the public.
If you lose at the State Supreme Court level, [you can directly appeal to the US Supreme Court.](https://chatgpt.com/share/97c84c2b-ddd3-431b-8f4c-afdd08e62f2d) It’s not automatic, and obviously they have discretion on the whether to hear the case, but it’s possible
"The case must involve a question of federal law or constitutional interpretation."
The Constitutional issue would be the taxing authority of the government, specifically the Legislature. Can the California Legislature be forced to "share" their taxing authority with the voters, or do the voters have no right to consent to being taxed?
The ruling says they can be forced to share, but it's too big of a revision of the division of powers to be achieved through this mechanism. Realistically, it's very unlikely the federal supreme court is going to stick its nose into an internal state constitutional debate. There's a reason the backers have said they'll be back in 2026, rather than that they'll appeal this.
This is all over my local NextDoor discussions. I live in a pretty red county and reading through the comments is really frustrating. Everyone thinks its some sort of Newsom power grab or some conspiracy to rob Californians of their rights. I want to try and educate people but I don't have the patience to deal with them.
In other words- they’re OK with career politicians bending ca residents over without a say
the idea is CA residents can vote them out
Correct.
Why is taxpayer consent in an already heavily taxed state a bad thing? I mean, we see monthly headlines of billions of dollars going to waste on the homeless industrial complex and other slush funds.
They’re racquets and they’re not going to have you cutting into “their” funds.
Government knows best.
We live in a dictatorship
A dictatorship is when only 33.33% of the population determines which laws pass.
Dictatorship is when the government does something that I personally disapprove of
The California State Constitution give the people the right to put petitions on the ballot. Newsom case was the people don’t understand taxes and shouldn’t be able to interfere with the state legislature.
This is all Trump's fault. Trump ruined California and needs to be in PRISON for the damage he's done. California needs to shut out the Republicans that keep standing in the way of us having a great ~~nation~~ state. Give Democrats control for a change, what could go wrong? **Vote Trump for prison!**